click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
the foreign- policy support. famously, they both worked to speak harsh truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the implosion of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some conservatives will tell you it was almost sort of like moses parting the red sea. they tear it all down. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly the truth telling to the soviet union was not a relevant and gave enormous hope to dissidents working behind the eastern block. domestically, they had a tremendously important impact on each other. they were both trying something, not identical but something very radical that was a kind of break with the economic policies and domestic policies of the past. the fact they were not isolated, that they could support to -- point to someone else on the other side of the ocean in charge of the important country who was doing the same thing, that make quite a difference, i think. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher that people who work closely with president reagan said it made a difference. there is this impressiv
foreign policy. and there's no disagreement about that in my country, that parliament passed last year unsl a policy, a resolution which def the icelandic objectives in the arctic. so together with the other countries, we hope to play a constructive part, and evidence of this was that a few months ago, one of our april civil servants and officials was chosen as the first director general of the secretary of the rctic council. >> the icelandic is coming out of financial turmoil. what would you consider the future of the krona, and are you at all considering any alternative currency for iceland? >> i think it's a positive indication of how we have moved out of the financial crisis, but i can come here to the national press club, and only when six minutes are left, i get that question orkt financial issue. nobody would have believed that four or five years ago. but that is the state of co together again and talk about how we recovered from the financial crisis and how we dealt with the crisis in a different way from many oer countries, how we did not follow the established orthodoxies of
unwavering in her support of president reagan. just the foreign- policy support. famously, they both worked to sort of speak half-truths about the unsustainability of the soviet union, something that coincided with the placing of the soviet union under its own contradiction. some will tell you it was almost like moses parting the red sea. i don't think it was quite that. but clearly, the truth telling was not irrelevant. hope tonor ms. dissidents working behind the eastern bloc. domestically, they had a -- theyusly important were trying something very radical. they wanted a break with the economic policies of the past. the fact that they were not isolated, they could point to someone on the other side of the ocean in charge of this was important. that made quite a difference. you can see in the tributes paid to lady thatcher, people who work closely to president reagan saying it made a difference. he is not on his own. there is an impressive leader in europe who shares his ideas. host: was it vice versa for her in britain? guest: it was. famously, they got along well. but there were differe
. and really at the heart of it is the fact that one of obama's enduring legacies when it comes to foreign policy, he has solidified assassination as an essential component of policy. >> they can do it in the shadows, as you pointed out. in the book, i would say there hasn't been a lot of public resistance aside from people like you and others in the press. how have they done this without facing much resistance? publicly or inside the government from people who should be stepping up and saying, wait a minute, we can't kill u.s. citizens without due process? >> right, i think there's no question that if john mccain had won the election in 2008 or mitt romney had won it in 2012 that liberals would be screaming about this stuff and saying, you know, that -- there would be this thing, war crimes, we should do impeachment and the reality is that i think a lot of people -- and i think this is sincere. a lot of people so fed up with the iraq war, perceived as the sort of crimes of the bush administration they wanted it to end and the obama administration has sold people a bill of goods. the idea
right or wrong, you'll never get in trouble. if you want to be critical of foreign policy because you belief, as a citizen -- remember, we have a thing called the constitution. all men are created equal. everybody, at least from the beginning, white, male, 2 1, with property, could vote. since then we've expanded -- well, i'm not being sarcastic because in terms of the world to have any white male who was sovereign, that we were sovereign. the american revolution declared the people sovereign rather than a king or queen. you couldn't have a king or queen taking your land away because they had finch it to you through sovereign rights. so if every citizen has a right to say what they should or should not do in our government, we would think we could respect that, and yet at the very beginning of the iraq war, when susan sarandon and tim robbins spoke out against the war, they had their invitation to talk to the baseball hall of fame withdrawn. and right after that i had a crew from fox news come to my house to interview me, because i don't go to the studios anymore. they want me? they
things that thatcher government did was scrap foreign exchange controls when it came to power in the late 1970s. so absolutely. privatization, eventual greater competition within the previously owned government sectors was a big plus. and obviously one contentious p policy was power between employers and trade unions. arguably now the u.k. has a much better industrial relations record than it did before 1979. >> you have to remember though in the '70s, you and i were doing our homework by candlelight when we had a three-day week. it did need rebalancing from that point of view. takes those lessons from those micropolicies which were successful whether there's some lessons today that need to be drawn by this current government because they are trying to kick-start wider only ownership but thatcher gave people the right to own their own homes but they had to qualify for mortgage on affordable income. >> that's one thing which the thatcher government did particularly in the early to mid 1980s. the big liberalization financial markets. scrapping of competition and credit control happened a lo
incentive to buy many of the things is rising sharply, including foreign bonds. and i think certainly the strength of some of the so-called core markets in europe, like france, for example, the past few weeks, probably greatly are due to the shift in japan's policies and maybe it's also starting to shift a bit into the periphery. against the background of the ecb from what i can see preparing the grounds for possible further move of monetary expansion themselves. >> right. yeah. >> so the peripheral narrowing makes a lot of sense. german yields are at such low levels, i wouldn't want to be rushing to put some of the o'neill trust in there. i think the spread timing going on with it makes a bit of sense. >> it's just interesting, as you say, tu look at what japan is doing and the attention shifting now to not just what they hope to achieve, but whether they'll actually be able to accomplish it. after averaging 0.6% deflation for the last couple of decades, are they going to hit 2%? is there, you know, a reason why people here, after the rallies that we've seen, should be a little bit m
characterized the treatment as torture when used by foreign governments. the c.i.a. recognized this in an internal review and realized many of the interrogation techniques employed were contrary with the policy the u.s. has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticizes another nation for engaging in torture and then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques like waterboarding, stress positions, and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal council which issued a decision approving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those decisions have since been repudiated by the o.l.c. it's sefment even in it's peap it relies not only on a narrow definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is important context as to how the opinion came about, but also as to how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the available reco
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8